|
|
Post by zeppelin on Jan 7, 2012 11:25:14 GMT 12
Yes, the 5th placed Welly car was excluded after the race, costing the Young Guns 10 points. The final outcome of their group was ESS Titans 255, Wellington Young Guns 250, so the relegation turned out to be a big part of their night although this was not known at the time. I think the above is covered by "at the discretion of the referee". While racing for points, which on the first night they were, the exclusion of a non-winning driver IS a penalty. I think that clause is to cover "first across the line" races where a backmarker can take out the leader on the last corner, and DQ'ing him would be no penalty therefore meaning the whole team has to go. Doesn't really apply in this case........ BarryB pretty much nailed it down...the very first part of the rule that quotes "at the referee's discretion" is pretty clear. This could be debated till the cows come home, through differing people's interpretation. You could say the Young Guns were ripped off, but just about every team & their supporters have felt the pain of having what they interpret as a harsh call go against them. Like it has been said you cannot blame Palmy Speedway, this event is controlled by SNZ "Red Hat" officials that are usually brought in from other areas, Palmy just promotes the event & provides a venue, track staff & equipment. It is always a good bit of debate though when various teams seem to be hard done by in the fans eyes... ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Shai-tan on Jan 7, 2012 11:32:46 GMT 12
You can't take anything away from Blenheim winning both of their races. Well deserved position in the finals.
|
|
thereal888
Full Member
Disturbed Race Team
Posts: 206
|
Post by thereal888 on Jan 7, 2012 11:42:52 GMT 12
It was an all to easy way for the palmy promoters to get rid of the real threat for them not to ignore it. Just like when they shafted the tigers at the super stock teams last year. Do you actually know what your talking about mate? Please enlighten me as to how palmy promotions shafted the Tigers last year? |
|
|
|
Post by Skorp on Jan 7, 2012 11:51:59 GMT 12
It was an all to easy way for the palmy promoters to get rid of the real threat for them not to ignore it. Just like when they shafted the tigers at the super stock teams last year. Do you actually know what your talking about mate? Please enlighten me as to how palmy promotions shafted the Tigers last year? some people like to blame palmy for the lead nelson car getting relegated in their semi against stratford, resulting in a win going to stratford and costing neslon a spot in the final. as a panther supporter, i felt nelson were a bit hard done by, but the rules are rules, and some parts of them are open to interpretation. |
|
|
|
Post by specks on Jan 7, 2012 11:56:21 GMT 12
It was an all to easy way for the palmy promoters to get rid of the real threat for them not to ignore it. Just like when they shafted the tigers at the super stock teams last year. "the real threat" Id have to say that the other 10 teams are all most of equal threats on the night, I think it would have been easy for palmy to come up against the young guns tonight other than the maulers and whoever wins the other semi, the 4 final teams were definatly showing flex and intelligence last nite forsure.... however I do believe in conspirerecy theorys can I percsribe a 911 doco beashboy or perhaps read the bible!! |
|
|
|
Post by walker on Jan 7, 2012 13:03:00 GMT 12
At the end of the day its the refs call but we need consistency.
I Saw in that race several times a blenheim blocker go into the in field towards the middle of the field and then come on again and do the same thing again.
I think its seeking shelter.
Should the refs be more strict and exclude drivers who do that?
|
|
|
|
Post by peteg181p on Jan 7, 2012 13:38:18 GMT 12
At the end of the day its the refs call but we need consistency. I Saw in that race several times a blenheim blocker go into the in field towards the middle of the field and then come on again and do the same thing again. I think its seeking shelter. Should the refs be more strict and exclude drivers who do that? i think you'll find he was doing a loop onto the infield and coming back onto track where he left not halfway down the straight like other cars were doing correct me if im wrong |
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Jan 7, 2012 13:44:47 GMT 12
At the end of the day its the refs call but we need consistency. I Saw in that race several times a blenheim blocker go into the in field towards the middle of the field and then come on again and do the same thing again. I think its seeking shelter. Should the refs be more strict and exclude drivers who do that? Sam Thompson and Brent Goulding were gone on the first lap so that left Ralph Gillespie, Zac Thompson, and Ricco Gray on the track for the remainder of the race. Given the carnage Ricco caused he obviously wasn’t seeking sanctuary and Ralph was running so that only leaves Zac. Are you saying you saw Zac Thompson seeking sanctuary on several occasions? |
|
|
|
Post by knownotmuch on Jan 7, 2012 14:02:42 GMT 12
Evidently how cars re-entered the track after being on the infield was going to be policed strictly. Therefore a number of drivers were a lot more careful about doing big turns to come back on track or waiting till the oppositions cars were clearly well passed before re-entering the track, making sure there was no chance of any advantage being gained.
This may have caused some spectators to think some cars spent more time on the infield than they normally would.
|
|
|
|
Post by walker on Jan 7, 2012 14:35:40 GMT 12
Yeah thanks for the clarification.
I just think if cars go onto the infield at their own accord then head towards the cones in the middle and the decide to rejoin the race they should be deemed to have retired from the race.
i.e if you go pass a certain section of the infield on your own accord not by the force of somebody eles i.e opposite car or your own team mate then you should be deemed to have retired.
As in cases it looks like (and has happened in the pass) cars seeing who is in the lead or re-positioning themselves to their advantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by beachboy on Jan 8, 2012 9:25:10 GMT 12
So two major championship meetings within a month of each other and at both to very boarder line calls which have left W cars excluded which has benefited the P. Conspiracy here or what?  |
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jan 8, 2012 9:49:18 GMT 12
So two major championship meetings within a month of each other and at both to very boarder line calls which have left W cars excluded which has benefited the P. Conspiracy here or what? Go and get Winston Peters on the case then. He's spent a lifetime of telling stories based on the flimsiest evidence; he's the King of the Conspiracy Theory. Perhaps the Chinese have got Bruce Robertson in their pocket... |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn, Ex 269s on Jan 8, 2012 9:55:11 GMT 12
It was an all to easy way for the palmy promoters to get rid of the real threat for them not to ignore it. Just like when they shafted the tigers at the super stock teams last year. Nah man, they were just giving the big middle finger to Nelson for being bad sports for packing up and going home with their tails between their legs when they didnt qualify a couple of years earlier. Rather than staying for the 2nd night and racing in the non-qualifiers they went home sulking like a pack of little schoolboys. |
|
thereal888
Full Member
Disturbed Race Team
Posts: 206
|
Post by thereal888 on Jan 8, 2012 10:03:29 GMT 12
Do you actually know what your talking about mate? Please enlighten me as to how palmy promotions shafted the Tigers last year? some people like to blame palmy for the lead nelson car getting relegated in their semi against stratford, resulting in a win going to stratford and costing neslon a spot in the final. as a panther supporter, i felt nelson were a bit hard done by, but the rules are rules, and some parts of them are open to interpretation. Agreed however I'm not sure how the rule of If you are forced infield you must submit and re-enter behind the car that took you infield so as not to gain advantage can be misinterpreted tho. In that case the Nelson car not only had all 4 wheels over the pole line but also kept his foot up it and re-entered the track "Gaining Advantage". So whose fault is it that he was relegated? Can't see it being Palmys or SNZ's! |
|
|
|
Post by Ben Biggs on Jan 8, 2012 10:06:58 GMT 12
Why oh why do all threads re ref's decisions or rules or interpretations of rules etc turn into a Palmy Nelson slanging match....
|
|
|
|
Post by Skorp on Jan 8, 2012 10:13:06 GMT 12
some people like to blame palmy for the lead nelson car getting relegated in their semi against stratford, resulting in a win going to stratford and costing neslon a spot in the final. as a panther supporter, i felt nelson were a bit hard done by, but the rules are rules, and some parts of them are open to interpretation. Agreed however I'm not sure how the rule of If you are forced infield you must submit and re-enter behind the car that took you infield so as not to gain advantage can be misinterpreted tho. In that case the Nelson car not only had all 4 wheels over the pole line but also kept his foot up it and re-entered the track "Gaining Advantage". So whose fault is it that he was relegated? Can't see it being Palmys or SNZ's! exactly the part of the rules that are open to interpretation is that is says they arent allowed to gain an advantage. i think they need to just remove the parts where it says "to gain an advantage" from the rulebook. then theres no arguments over whether someone gained an advantage by crossing the poleline, its a simple "did he cross the poleline?" "yes" "the he broke the rules and should be relegated/excluded". it would simplify things, and then if one track isnt being punished for it you can show there is a bias and complain about that. |
|
|
|
Post by PantherFan87 on Jan 8, 2012 11:34:46 GMT 12
Why oh why do all threads re ref's decisions or rules or interpretations of rules etc turn into a Palmy Nelson slanging match.... Because Beachboy is still smarting from Teams last year. |
|
|
|
Post by Ben Biggs on Jan 8, 2012 12:54:32 GMT 12
I'm a Tigers fan - thru and thru, but still have enough respect for the opposition and rival tracks. Competition is healthy.
|
|
|
|
Post by beachboy on Jan 8, 2012 20:15:30 GMT 12
It was an all to easy way for the palmy promoters to get rid of the real threat for them not to ignore it. Just like when they shafted the tigers at the super stock teams last year. Nah man, they were just giving the big middle finger to Nelson for being bad sports for packing up and going home with their tails between their legs when they didnt qualify a couple of years earlier. Rather than staying for the 2nd night and racing in the non-qualifiers they went home sulking like a pack of little schoolboys. Nah man it was because the year before they smashed the P that much that not one Panther finished and it stuffed up the happy ending for there TV doco. ;D ;D |
|
